A Minor Rape Survivor In Our Country Would Rather Suffer Silently Than Falsely Implicate Someone: Allahabad High Court

Denying bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl, the Allahabad High Court has recently observed that in our country, a minor girl, who is a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than implicate somebody falsely. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said that the Court must keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, where it would be unusual for a girl to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault to implicate an innocent person. “Any statement of a rape victim is an extremely humiliating experience for her and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit,” the single judge further remarked. The court was dealing with the bail plea of an accused booked under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act in connection with the rape case involving an 11-year-old girl. The accused, who was arrested in September last year, moved the HC seeking bail where he contended that in her statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim had not explicitly stated about any penetration. Hence, there was no sexual intercourse, and therefore, no offence of rape is made out against the applicant. Referring to the medical examination report recorded by the investigating officer in the case diary, it was argued that no sign of any force was found in the medical report. Hence, the prosecution case was not corroborated by the medical evidence. On the other hand, the AGA for the state opposed his bail plea by submitting that the father of the victim (informant) is an eyewitness of the incident, which took place in his own house. It was also argued that in her statements, the victim had supported the prosecution case and made specific allegations of outraging her modesty against the applicant, giving a vivid description of the incident and the act and conduct of the applicant, which would come under the preview of the definition of rape. Top of Form Lastly, it was also argued that given Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court should presume that the accused has committed an offence unless the offender proves the contrary. Perusing the statements recorded by the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, the Court noted that they both contained similar statements, and the minor discrepancies in the same did not shake the basic version of the prosecution, which alleged that misdeed was committed against the victim. Regarding the contention that no penetration took place, the Court observed that the allegation against the applicant that he had committed misdeeds with the victim would come under the stage beyond an attempt to execute it; as such, the court noted, the applicant would be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 63 BNS (Rape). The Court added that even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was no penetration, even then, the applicant is liable to be punished under Section 65(2) BNS as the victim is aged below 12 years as the alleged act of the accused is covered by the definition of rape provided under Section 63 of BNS. Against this backdrop, concluding that the court doesn't find any material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant and to disbelieve the statements of the minor victim, which is primary for considering the bail application of the accused in rape cases, the Court refused to grant him bail. Case title - Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 54 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 54 Click Here To Read/Download order

A Minor Rape Survivor In Our Country Would Rather Suffer Silently Than Falsely Implicate Someone: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags